From pycyn@aol.com Fri Sep 21 12:23:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 21 Sep 2001 19:23:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 44707 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2001 19:23:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 21 Sep 2001 19:23:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta2 with SMTP; 21 Sep 2001 19:23:41 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.f2.fe2e62a (9761) for ; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:23:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:23:34 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f2.fe2e62a.28dcedb6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_f2.fe2e62a.28dcedb6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/21/2001 11:15:59 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: <> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u} > > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du=20 makau}? >=20 > Why that presumption?=A0 I am not sure.=20 > It's the natural extension of this abuse of notation: using=20 >=20 But {ce'u} is not any function at all, and certainly not the identity=20 function. It is just a bound variable of a certain type, one that creates= =20 functions to types of objects out of those types of objects by putting in t= he=20 holes. <> {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does=20 > it depend on {le} to turn it into one?> > Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self=20 identical and=20 > that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out.=20 But the value of the function will be different for each! How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case? In both cases there is one function wich gives different values for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in=20 {le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".> Right you are, they do differ in le du be ce'u. I got off on the fact that= =20 this is a pretty pointless one, since, if we know they differ at all, they= =20 differ in this way, so this is not very informative. But it is true. Than= ks=20 for reminding me. <> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u}=20 > creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to=20 whatever the=20 > matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into as=20 a sumti.=20 Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why=20 can't ce'u stand for the identity function?> The matrix here is a proposition, so {ce'u} in it creates a property. To b= e=20 sure, as you just pointed out, one of the arguments to this property that=20 yields a truth is the identity function. So, in that sense (application of= =20 function to argument) I suppose {ce'u} can stand for the identity function,= =20 along with several other functions, including {le du'u makau du ce'u}. I=20 don't see the thread of this argument at the moment, though, since that fac= t=20 does not fit in with where I thought you were going or where you need to be= =20 going to make some sort of case here against {ce'u} in sentences or sumti. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised ({te tavla} looks like a case at= =20 first glance). Again, what is the point here? I thought your concern was= =20 about two abstractions, {le broda be ce'u} (a function to individuals) and= =20 {le du'u makau broda} (a set of propositions). Why point to a concretum=20 instead, {le broda}? It seems irrelevant. In a message dated 9/21/2001 11:15:59 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambia= s@hotmail.com writes:

<> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u}
> > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du=20
makau}?
>=20
> Why that presumption?=A0 I am not sure.=20
It's the natural extensio= n of this abuse of notation: using=20
ce'u itself for the identity function.


But {ce'u} is not any function at all, and certainly not the identity f= unction.  It is just a bound variable of a certain type, one that crea= tes functions to types of objects out of those types of objects by putting = in the holes.

<> <Or will you insist on using=20
> {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does=20
> it depend on {le} to turn it into one?>
> Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self=20
identical and=20
> that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out.=20

But the value of the function will be different for each!
How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case?
In both cases there is one function wich gives different values
for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in=20
{le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".>

Right you are, they do differ in le du be ce'u.  I got off on the = fact that this is a pretty pointless one, since, if we know they differ at = all, they differ in this way, so this is not very informative.  But it= is true.  Thanks for reminding me.

<> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u}=20
> creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to=20
whatever the=20
> matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into a= s=20
a sumti.=20

Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why=20
can't ce'u stand for the identity function?>

The matrix here is a proposition, so {ce'u} in it creates a property. &= nbsp;To be sure, as you just pointed out, one of the arguments to this prop= erty that yields a truth is the identity function.  So, in that sense = (application of function to argument) I suppose {ce'u} can stand for the id= entity function, along with several other functions, including {le du'u mak= au du ce'u}.  I don't see the thread of this argument at the moment, t= hough, since that fact does not fit in with where I thought you were going = or where you need to be going to make some sort of case here against {ce'u}= in sentences or sumti.

<I don't think this is only about {djuno}. Is there any predicate
at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}
indifferently? >

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised  ({te tavla} looks like = a case at first glance).  Again, what is the point here?  I thoug= ht your concern was about two abstractions, {le broda be ce'u} (a function = to individuals) and {le du'u makau broda} (a set of propositions).  Wh= y point to a concretum instead, {le broda}?  It seems irrelevant.

<You really don't see any parallel between the {le broda}:
{le du'u makau broda} pair and the {le broda be ce'u}:{le du'u=20
makau broda ce'u} one?

Sure, I see a parallel; the first are (very loosely) instances of the s= econd, with the {ce'u} applied to the same argument ({zo'e}, I suppose). &n= bsp;So?  The fact remains that one of the first is a concretum, the ot= her an abstractum, while both of the second pair are abstracts -- and it is= the role of abstracts that I claim allows them to function in the same env= ironment.  So the problems (if there are any) with a concretum and an = abstract in the same place have no bearing on the issue.

Yoou seem to be regularly confusing a function with its values and that= is likely to lead to a (n even more) serious mass of misunderstandings -- = which it seems to have done.

--part1_f2.fe2e62a.28dcedb6_boundary--